INDIANA MAGAZINE of HISTORY Volume XL March, 1944 No

INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY Volume XL March, 1944 No. 1

Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy of 1915 CEDRIC C. CUMMINS The year 1915 was crucial in American relations with the World War belligerents. Under the hard impact of that year’s unescapable developments, the nation formulated its policy toward English and German violations of American sea rights-a policy which was to constitute one of the major causes of war with Germany. It is the purpose of this study to trace the evolution of that policy in a fairly typical state.l The year opened with a debate on the propriety of American munition sales to the fighting nations, centering upon the embargo resolution which the German-American member, Richard Bartholdt, had introduced in Congress. In Indiana, German sympathizers took the lead in the cam- paign, and throughout the early months of 1915 they pushed the drive with vigor and near-desperation. If they had known that they must succeed or fail before the “Lusitania” had made a few more crossings, they would have worked even more frantically. Indiana congressmen were showered with letters, tele- grams, and resolutions threatening political retaliation for adverse votes, while the general public was pursued by means of editorials, “Letters to the Editor,” pamphlets, and public meetings.‘ Irish and German efforts were pooled, and under the name of the American Neutrality League they held joint

1 This article is a continuation of one that appeared in a previous number of this journal: Cedric C. Cummins, “Indiana Looks at the World War, 1914,” Zndiana Magazine of Histovy (Bloomington, Indiana, 1905-), XXXVII (1941), 307-44. Both were prepared in seminars in Recent United States History at Indiana University under the direction of Dr. R. Carlyle Buley. 2 Richmond, Indiana, Palladium, February 19, 1915, p. 4; La Porte, Indiana, Argus, January 8, 1915, p. 1; Brazil, Indiana, Daily Times, January 26, 1915, p. 4. 2 Indiana Magazine of History

embargo meetings throughout the country. From a platform prominently bedecked with the American flag, speakers at these gatherings argued for a stoppage of the arms traffic on the grounds of “real neutrality” and Christianity and predicted that such action would bring a cessation of war ‘‘in 90 days.” Responsibility for the unholy sales was placed on the triumvirate of munition makers, “shylocks of high finance,” and “Tory newspapers.” Sarcastic references were made to “kind Uncle Sam” who talked of neutrality but handed a blackjack to one set of belligerents, and who dispatched nurses and medicine to bind up the wounds of Europe and at the same time sent guns to inflict more wounds. The audience cheered proposals for the establishment of a “higher and better international law” and hissed references to Eng- land, J. P. Morgan, the DuPonts, and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan-strange company for “The Com- moner”! At the close of the session, a previously prepared resolution was read, unanimously adopted, and forwarded to the local editors and congre~smen.~ The churches that opposed all war, such as Quaker and Mennonite, the Socialists, and other positive pacifists gave added support to the crusade, and from the evangelistic rural and small town sections came a scattering of passive ap- pr0va1.~ Unmistakably, however, the greater part of the public was opposed to an arms embargo, for whether they came out squarely against it with ringing declarations or simply stood aside from all pro-embargo activity, the result was a vote against a change in existing policy. For one thing, the dominant role played by the pro-Germans caused the embargo movement to be associated, not with neutrality, but its opposite. The public knew that if stopping munition

3 Indianapolis Telegraph und Tribune, February 9, 1915, p. 1; Indiana olis News, February 9, 1915, p. 9; Fort Wayne, Indiana, Sentinel January 12, 1915, p. 2; Hammond, Indiana, Lake County News, February 11, 1915, p. 1; La Porte, Indiana, Argus, January 8, 1915, p. 1. See also Clifton J. Child, “German-American Attempts to Prevent the Exportation of Munitions of War, 1914-1915,” Misszssippi Valley Historical Review (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1915-), XXV (1938- 1939), 351-68; Carl Wittke, German-Americans and the World War (Columbus, Ohio, 1936). 4 Goshen, Indiana, Democrat, September 18, 1914, p. 6; Fort Wayne, Indiana, Journal-Gazette, July 13, 1915, p. 14; Lafayette, Indiana, Courjer, February 13, 1915, p. 4; Richmond, Indiana, American Friend, passzm; Scottsdale, Pennsylvania, Gospel . Herald, January 21, 1915, p. 681; Francis M. Wilcox, Seventh-day Adventists in Time of War (Washington, 1936). Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 3

exports would end the war in ninety days, it could do so only by insuring a victory of previously prepared Germany. That, most of them did not want. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the right of private citizens of a neutral country to sell munitions to belligerents was a long-accepted principle of international law-subject only to rules governing blockade and contraband-and a principle for which the United States had many times ~ontended.~An abrupt change of that rule in the midst of war would be an unneutral act that would withhold from the Allied powers rights belonging to them under international law.” “It is the business of a belligerent operating on the high seas, not the duty of a neutral, to prevent contraband from reaching an enemy,” and it would be “an act of partiality on the part of this government” to “equalize the difference due to the relative naval strength of the belligerents,” ran a much-quoted ex- pression of ~pinion.~It was further contended that instead of promoting peace, an embargo would place a premium on militarism by necessitating the accumulation in time of peace of great stores of fighting equipment. Since the United States was one of the non-military nations, the establishment of a precedent that would prevent it from buying needed war stocks abroad when at war was labeled “highly un- patriotic.”* In addition, and with emphasis, opposition to the embargo was placed on the basis that its adoption would “shut down many of our largest factories” and “throw

5 Indianapolis News, January 23, 1915, p. 6; Evansville, Indiana, Courier, January 9, 1915, p. 4; Terre Haute, Indiana, Star, February 20, 1915, p. 6; Muncie, Indiana, Evening Press, February 8, 1915, p. 4. The Litwury Digest polled 1,000 editors on the embargo question. Of the 440 who replied, 244 opposed, 167 favored, and the remainder were undecided. See Literary Digest (New York, 1890-1938), L (1915), 225-26. “Princeton, Indiana, Democrat, January 27, 1915, p. 2; South Bend, Indiana, Tribune, January 1, 1915, p. 8; Louisville, Kentucky, Herald, April 18, 1915, p. 4; Brazil, Indiana, Daily Times, January 26, 1915, p. 4. 7 These were the words of Bryan in his letter to Senator William J. Stone of January 20. See Goshen, Indiana, News-Times, January 25, 1915, p. 2; Hammond, Indiana, Lake County News, January 28, 1915, p. 2; Valparaiso, Indiana, Daily Vidette, January 25, 1915, p. 1. ’La Porte, Indiana, Aryus, January 2, 1915, p. 4; Princeton, In- diana, Democrat, February 11, 1915, p. 2. Former President William Howard Taft was quoted as saying “we would be most foolish to sdopt a policy of refusing to sell arms and ammunition to belligerent powers which, if it was pursued against us when we were driven into war, would leave us helpless.” South Bend, Indiana, Tribune, February 24, 1915, p. 8. 4 Indiana Magazine of History thousands of men out of work.” Spokesmen for manufacturers, retail merchants, organized laborers, and farmers were a unit on this score, though the first spoke aggressively; the second and third, defensively ; and the last, apol~getically.~ In the terse words of the Louisville Times, “Instead of oc- cupying a neutral position, this country would incur a financial loss by the abandonment of a legalized traffic, in order to aid Germany.”lO Meanwhile, American commerce on the Atlantic was being buffeted by Allied efforts to blockade the Central Powers and by a new German submarine program. But despite their grave portent for the future, these developments attracted only limited initial attention in Indiana, and the lack of spectacular incidents caused public opinion to crystalize slowly and irregularly. Under those circumstances, perhaps the most fruitful method of tracing the reactions of the Hoosiers through the early months of the controversy is to follow the daily comments of a typical newspaper, such as the South Bend Tribune. This paper was pro-Ally but not pugnaciously so. Being Republican in politics, its expressions were not mere reflections of those of the national administration. Three days before the beginning of the year the United States had dispatched its first strong protest note of the war. It had gone to England and detailed a cumulative list of objectionable sea-practices dating from the early days of the war, most of which concerned British attempts to shift the burden of proof from the belligerent admirals to the neutral shippers. A full-page headline, “Wilson Demands Big Damages Of England,” brought the news to the attention of the readers of the South Bend Tribune.lI The editor applauded the note, asserting that the “United States not only spoke for itself in the matter but also for every other neutral nation.” Furthermore, “the vigorous and direct protest ought ‘to go far in silencing the assertions that this country is pro-Allies in its sentiment. The note to Great

9 Indianapolis Kews, January 6, 1915, p. 6; Brazil, Indiana, Daily Times, January 26, 1915, p. 4; Fort Wayne, Indiana, Sentinel, March 16, 1915, p. 4; Indianapolis Commercial, January 11, 1915, p. 1 and January 21, 1915, p. 1; Indianapolis Union, September 25, 1914, p. 4; Thirty-first Annual Convention of the Indiana State Federation of Labor, Proceedings (Indianapolis, 1915), 91. loLouisville, Kentucky, Times, January 7, 1915, p. 6. 11 South Bend, Indiana, Tribune, December 29, 1914, p. 1. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controver,sy 5

Britain shows that we are pro-nothing except pro-neutral.”12 On January 10, 1915, the English made a preliminary reply that left the editor disappointed but still optimistic : About all that can be or ought to be said concerning the British reply to the American note of protest sent some days ago to Great Britain is that it is apparently satisfactory as far as it goes. Being merely preliminary in character, it does not go to the end of the matter.13 The next development to catch the editorial eye was the controversy over the “Dacia,” a formerly German-owned and interned merchantman that was preparing to carry a cotton cargo to Germany for its new German-American owner. In an editorial of January 21 he used the English threat to seize the “Dacia” as an argument against the pend- ing ship-purchase bill. For, he reasoned, if the government bought interned German ships and the Allies confiscated them when they appeared on the ocean, it would create a “grave risk of becoming involved in the European war.”I4 The following day he took up a discussion of the “Dacia” case on its own merits, criticizing those who argued that the duties of neutrality demanded that the United States prevent the ship from leaving port. Let it sail, said the editor; a British prize court will determine its status. He did not appear to be excessively concerned as to which way the decision would go, for like most of the public, he regarded the issue primarily as one between Germany and the Allies.16 The next move in the commercial war was Germany’s, and on February 4 she issued the first of her submarine orders, proclaiming that the waters around Great Britain

12Zbid., December 30, 1914, p. 6. For similar statements see Seymour, Indiana, Republican, January 4, 1915, p. 4; Princeton, Indiana, Democrat, January 1, 1915, p. 2; Hartford City, Indiana, Telegram, December 30, 1914, p. 4; Indianapolis Star, December 30, 1914, p. 6; Indianapolis, Indiana Daily Times, December 31, 1914, p. 6; Evansville, Indiana, Courier, January 1, 1915, p. 4; Lafayette, Indiana, Courier, December 31, 1914, p. 6. 13 South Bend, Indiana, Tribune, January 11, 1915, p. 6. 14Zbid., January 21, 1915, p. 8. Republican leaders in Congress made frequent use of this argument in their efforts to defeat the administration’s plan to create a government-owned merchant marine by buying interned ships of the combatant nations. 15Zbid., January 22, 1915, p. 8. This editor’s unexcited reaction to the “Dacia” controversy was typical of the state. As far as Indiana was concerned, Ambassador Walter Hines Page’s artful suggestion that a French, not an English, warship should do the arrest- ing was helpful but far from vital. 6 Indiana Magazine of History and Ireland were to be considered a war zone in which all enemy vessels, merchant as well as war, were to be destroyed. The news filled one column of the front page, but no editorial comment was forthcoming on this or succeeding days. In fact, most papers fell short of even this limited emphasis. In the Indianapolis News the account of the German order did not so much as begin at the top of the page. The Sey- mour Republican gave it three inches of space, and the Bloomington Daily Telephone buried it on the last page.la On February 10 the State Department responded to the submarine threat by serving notice that the United States Gov- ernment would hold Germany to “strict accountability” for any American lives and property destroyed in violation of acknowledged principles of international law. At the same time a note was dispatched to Great Britain protesting her ruse of flying the American flag over English vessels while in the danger zone. The South Bend editor carried this double news under the heading, “Pointed Notes Sent by Nation to Two Powers” with the subheading “Both Great Britain and Germany Well Informed of United States Posi- tion.”“ The following day the notes were given full approval as being “of the right sort.” The remonstrance to Britain was described as being rightly less vigorous than that to Germany because rules governing the use of neutral flags were vague and undefined, whereas, for proposed Ger- man action there was absolutely no legal basis.18 No mention was made of the “strict accountability” clause ! A week later, German and English replies were received almost simultaneously. The editor bracketed them in a discussion pointing out that neither conceded anything to the American position and that American rejoinders were probably being prepared. “We are advocates of neither bel-

16 Ibid., February 5, 1915, p. l; Indianapolis News, February 5, 1915, p. 1; Seymour, Indiana, Republican, February 6, 1915, p. 1; Bloomington, Indiana, Dailg T,eZephone, February 5, 1915, p. 4. At this particular period the citizens of Bloomington had very little time for the discussion of anything except the proposal in the state legislature that Indiana University be moved to Lafayette. 17 South Bend, Indiana, Tribune, February 11, 1915, p. 1. The British strategy of raising the American flag over her ships while in the submarine zone received more notice and censure in Indiana than did any of her previous practices. Its nature was such as to catch attention, and it carried a connotation of obliquity. As a matter of fact, action in this case was probably legal. ISIbid., February 12, 1915, p: 8. Only a small percentage of the editors made mention of the “strict accountability” phrase. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 7 ligerent before the other . . . . We have only ourselves to look out for. It is a trying situation; one that will not be bettered by captuous criticism of England, Germany or of President Wilson.”1g Washington’s birthday provided the editor with an occasion to express his views as to the proper goals of American foreign policy, and he found them to be two : (1) remain free of Old World quarrels and (2) uphold “the rights of neutrality.”2o During the remainder of the month he expressed opposition to an arms embargo, worried over those who had divided national loyalties, and criticized Theodore Roosevelt for his growing bellicosity. March 1 was greeted with a new British Order in Coun- cil which further tightened the Allied blockade by providing for the interception of all ships sailing to or from Germany and by placing food on the contraband list. “We should speak to the Allies in terms as certain and as plain as those in which we spoke to Germany,” was the editor’s reaction. However, he hastened to add, “what recourse we shall have if our protests are ignored rests in the future. For the present at least it were better it remain there.”21 But on the very day that the British order went into effect news came of another event which overshadowed and nullified it as far as public opinion was concerned. For on March 11 the German cruiser, “Prinz Eitel Friedrich,” put in at New- port News and announced the sinking of the American merchantman, “William P. Frye,” after rescue of its crew. This act was a clear violation of American sea rights (as Germany tardily admitted) and meant the loss of one of the best units in the small American merchant fleet. The editor commented, Germany now has a chance to prove her assertion of February that “heretofore” she has observed the Declaration of London by assuming full responsibility for the destruction of the “William P. Frye” and making full and immediate reparation. [This sinking] . . . .has crowded the “Wilhelmina” and “Dacia” cases out of the limelight.22 A few days later a new aspect made its appearance when the editor observed that the “United States’ protests seem to have more effect upon Carranza than on Great Britain or

1@Zbid.,February 19, 1915, p. 10. ZnZbid., February 22, 1915, p. 6. 21 Zbid., March 2, 1915, p. 6. 22 Zbd.; March 11, 1915, p. 8 and March 12, 1915, p. 8. 8 Indiana Magazine of History

Germany. Maybe it is because they were backed up by a cruiser.”27 What was in his mind was shown more clearly by his arguments in the next issue that the uncertain times had made an increase in the army and navy imperati~e.~~ Discouraged by the slow progress of American diplomacy, he was advocating that the United States increase its bargaining power by carrying a bigger stick. By March 26, however, he believed he had found a more profitable and less dangerous solution to current diplomatic problems. The country should sit tight until the end of the war when da,mages could be col- lected and the fruits of American factories and farms sold to a depleted Europe: So, while we rage and fume inwardly at the difficulties which beset us and at the annoyances which Europe thrusts upon us, it will be some comfort to remember that there will be a day of reckoning after awhile when we shall not only demand and receive damages for what we have suffered but when all of Europe will also have to pay us for what we have and what it has not, but which it will most desperately need. Things shall have to grow much worse before we can afford to permit ourselves to be drawn into the vortext swirling over Europe.25 This program of long-range patience must not have been entirely self-satisfying, because a short time later he returned to the “Frye” incident with biting criticism of Germany’s failure to “acknowledge its wrong and voluntarily make re- compense.” This time he had no set solution: Just what a great neutral nation which possesses the power to strike in its own defense if necessary, should do to maintain its rights, its friendships and its peace as well is no small problem. While the government is seeking to solve it, the situation emphasizes anew the demand patriotism makes upon us all to stand unitedly and unequivocably behind the President.20 The month of April saw few new developments in the commercial war that the combatants were waging against one another and the rest of the world. The editor used the lull for further defense of the munitions sales and for criticism of hyphenates, German air raids, and the use of poison gas. In early May he returned to the submarine issue as a result of German attacks on the American tankers, “Cush-

23 Zbid., March 16, 1915, p. 8. 24Zbid., March 17, 1915, p. 8. 25Zbid., March 26, 1915, p. 10. ZeZhid., March 31, 1915, p. 8. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 9

ing” and “Gulflight,” remarking that, “Torpedoing neutral ships at sea is always a grave matter for some unfortunate sailors.”27 On May 6 he printed without comment the Chi- cago Herald’s virulent condemnation of the sinking of the “Gulflight” and carried a cartoon on the front page picturing submarines lying in wait for American ships.z8 Having come to the eve of the “Lusitania” sinking, one is inclined to look back over the road with some puzzlement and to inquire as to just what was the attitude of this editor and the public during those months. Inattention and inde- cision seemed almost to outweigh the more positive reactions, and practically all of the newspapers displayed more interest in Mexico, the ship-purchase bill, and politics than in the great war. There were week-long stretches when the smaller dailies made only the most cursory references to the war. Yet, one thing was clear enough. As long as no irremediable injury was done, i.e., loss of life, or national animosities aroused, there would be but little excitement over a “matter such as the stoppage of ships.” This applied to German action as well as English, for so clear cut a violation of law and comity as the destruction of the “William P. Frye” raised no war sentiments. The public did not even object very strenuously to Germany’s submarine order-as long as it was not enforced in a manner detrimental to the life of United States citizens. This possibility became a reality when on May 7, 1915, the “Lusitania,” pride of the English Cunard Line, was torpedoed and sunk without warning near the Irish coast with nearly 2,000 passengers and crew aboard. On that initial day, however, the Indiana public found but little positive information in their newspapers. They read (usually for the first time) of the warning that had appeared in the New York press on May 1, of the American celebrities who were aboard, of the size and beauty of the ship, and of the time and place of the sinking. They read, also, that because of the large air-tight bulkheads, adequate lifeboats, and the nearness of other vessels and of the Irish shore, virtually

27 Zbid., May 3, 1915, p. 6. The editor took no notice of the warning to prospective travelers published by the German Embassy in the New York papers on May 1. ?RZhd., May 6, 1915, pp. 1 and 10. 10 Zn.diana Magazine of History

all of the passengers were believed to be safe.29 But by the next morning a tale of confusion, panic, and death began to unroll. Three names in the casualty list caught the public eye : author Elbert Hubbard, wealthy Alfred G. Vanderbilt who perished after surrendering his life preserver to a woman, and Broadway producer Charles Frohman whose half-smiling acquiescence in death as the “most beautiful adventure of life” constituted the perfect exit.30 Piteous stories were recounted. Two children “were brought ashore clasped in each other’s arms.” A mother, half crazed by her experiences, who was pulled from the sea with a dead infant in her arms, “looked for a moment at the child’s face and then said, ‘Let me bury my baby’ at the same time placing the child in the water.”31 In Indiana, rumors sprang up, grew, and multiplied like endlessly dividing cells. Sun- day night and throughout Monday morning the report swept parts of the state that President Wilson had been assissinated by a German agent? Clearly this sinking was not to be as casually regarded as had those that had preceded it. The fact that 124 of the dead who lay along the Irish shore or remained undiscovered in the nearby Atlantic were citizens of the United States had made the tragedy an American one, bringing the “European War” home to the American public. The subjects of politics and Mexico were shoved aside, and the weekly newspapers took up a discussion of the war for the first time since the excitement of its beginning. Horror and anger mounted hand in hand. The action was “piratical,” “abominable,” “sickening,” “dastardly,” “hellish,” and a “massacre” exclaimed the South Bend Tribune in a single edit~rial.~~The Evansville Courier was of the opinion that, “It is not war; it is the deliberate cold- blooded murder of women and children.. . . It is as wanton, brutal, insensate as any of the acts that have made Attila

29 Fort Wayne, Indiana, News, May 7, 1915, p. 1; Anderson, In- diana, Bulletin, May 7, 1915, p. 1; Gary, Indiana, Post-Tribune, May 7, 1915, p. 1. 30 Elkhart, Indiana, Truth, May 8, 1915, p. 1; Terre Haute, In- diana, Star, May 9, 1915, p. 1; Indianapolis Star, May 11, 1915, p. 8. Frohman was quoted by survivors as saying, “Why fear death? It is the most beautiful adventure of life.” 31Indianapolis News, May 8, 1915, p. 1; South Bend, Indiana, Tribune, May 10, 1915, p. 1; Gary, Indiana, Post-Tribune, May 10, 1915, p. 1. 32 Muncie, Indiana, Evening Press, May 10, 1915, p. 1. 33 South Bend, Indiana, Tribune, May 8, 1915, p. 10. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 11

and Alva cursed through the ages.”34 A Hammond editor shouted that the “Lusitania” victims were simply assassinated. Today Germany defends the act by saying to America: You were warned. If one man should write a letter to another saying: “I’m coming to your house to shoot you tonight” and did so-WOULD THAT BE ANY LESS MURDER BECAUSE OF THE LETTER? The sinking of the Lusitania horrifies the world. The shades of Attila and Nero are disconsolate these days. None such opportunities were theirs.35 “Many stories of the atrocities of war may have been false, but they are easier to believe pronounced the Frank- fort Crescent-News, and the Steuben Republican judged it “a sorry day for the German people when the Lusitania was sent to her doom, for not a nation on earth before that time thought it possible that any civilized people could com- mit such an act.”37 The Vevay Reveille drew an analogy between the ocean highway and Main Street in Vevay. “Ev- erybody has a right to travel it so long as he observes the law and the rights of others. Because two families living on opposite sides of the street are at enmity does not war- rant closing the street.” Furthermore, to give warning “only makes the case the more aggravated. Premeditation in any killing makes it murder in the first degree.”38 Down in Louisville, Henry Watterson marshaled his powers of invective and English phraseology for a devastating verbal assault on “Wilhelm the Murderer” in the columns of his Courier-Journal that was probably unequaled in the United States.39 An analysis of these and other expressions reveals that the platform from which the attacks were delivered on the torpedoing of the “Lusitania” consisted of three planks : (1) the law of humanity, (2) the law of nations, and (3) the Treaty of 1828 between the United States and Prussia. The first was a moral protest and was expressed in the language of the King James’ Version, Pilgrim’s Progress, McGuffey Readers, and the camp meeting. Since this was

34Evansville, Indiana, Courier, May 8, 1915, p. 6. “SHarnrnond, Indiana, Lake County Times, May 8, 1915, p. 4. Frankfort, Indiana, Cresoent-News, May 13, 1915, p. 4. 37 Angola, Indiana, Steuben Republiean, May 12, 1915, p. 4. 38 Vevay, Indiana, Reveille, May 13, 1915, p. 4. 39Louisville, Kentucky, Courier-Journal, May 9, 1915, p. 4 and May 11, 1915, p. 6. 12 Indiana Magazine of History the plane on which the invasion of Belgium had been condemned, the Belgian and “Lusitania” catastrophes were mentally associated and regarded as common manifestations of German ruthlessness. It was significant from the stand- point of public opinion that a considerable number of Ger- man moves appeared to violate moral as well as more prosaic laws, and thereby entered into the American consciousness on that level. It was of even greater significance that Ger- many and her associates maintained a monopoly of such actions, for although the people of Indiana took legal,, commercial, and nationalistic exception to deeds by both groups of combatants, actions of the Central Powers alone elicited moral disapprobation. And woe unto that power which seeks to interpret American foreign policy without taking into consideration the evangelistic spirit that surges in the blood of millions of its citizens !40 The second objection to the “Lusitania” sinking was that it violated the law of nations. Geography and a hundred years of comparative foreign peace had caused American foreign policy to become identified with the accepted norms of international law to an extent that was not true of any other country. Under this law Germany possessed the legal right to seize the contraband which the “Lusitania” carried, and in particular circumstances she could destroy the vessel itself, so long as she fulfilled the legal obligation of providing for the relative safety of the crew and passengers. But in this case American citizens had gone to their death because the latter had been ignored, and upon that ground the editors rightly took their stand.41 Although in practice the Middle West was not inclined to become unduly stirred over violations of legal rights that affected property alone, the destruction of American life on the “Lusitania” constituted an irreparable damage that lighted the fires of nationalistic anger. Unless the citizens were willing to endure similar

40For further comments on this score see Ralph H. Gabriel, The Course of American Democratic Thought (New York, 1940), 339-56; David L. Cohn, The Good Old Days (New York, 1940)) 75; Merle Curti, The Growth of American Thought (New York, 1943), passim. 41 South Bend, Indiana, News-Times, May 8, 1915, p. 4; La Porte, Indiana, Argus, May 8, 1915, p. 4; Attica, Indiana, Fountain-Warren Democrat, May 13, 1915, p, 2; Kokomo, Indiana, Tribune, May 11, 1915, p. 4; Vevay, Indiana, Reveille, May 13, 1915, p. 4; Indianapolis N,ews, May 8, 1915, p. 6. For a careful study of this whole topic see Thomas A. Bailey, “The Sinking of the Lusitania,” American Historical Review (New York, 1895-), XLI (1935), 54-73. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 13 tragic losses in the future, this matter could not be left for settlement until the end of the war, as could the commercial disputes. An understanding must be reached with Germany without too much delay. Seeking to place their case on as high a plane as possible, many argued that in this instance America’s cause had become the cause of all neutrals, present and future. It was asserted that the only major nation at peace in a world at war held a trust for all civilization to protect and nurture the gains thus far achieved in the long struggle to make warfare as humane as possible. In the words of the Indianapolis News : This is a wholly new method of warfare, and one that the neutral nations of the world can not permit to be established. If we are to have wars in the future, we must do everything in our power to see that they are free from such horrors as that of Friday.42 This was placing the American position on an intervational as well as a patriotic foundation and providing a chart of a mission for peaceful America in a warring world. The third objection to the torpedoing of the “Lusi- tania” was based on the still-effective treaty which the United States had signed with Prussia in 1828. Yet, although virtually everything that the United States was to demand of Germany was unequivocably granted by this com- pact, only a limited number of writers displayed a know- ledge of it, and these were rather obviously engaging in legalistic rationali~ation.~~ As a realization of the grim seriousness of the situation spread over Hoosierdom, a united cry arose for all to stand behind the President in the portentous decision that he must make. In the meantime, the editors advised, it behooved loyal Americans to curb their tongues and refrain from rocking the boat. When analysis is pushed beyond this gratifying display of patriotic unity, another facet of current public opinion is uncovered. Notwithstanding the general agreement that the sinking was a most dastardly deed, the evidence is clear that virtually none wanted war. For when the editors had written the requisite number of angry adjectives and turned to a discussion as to what should be

42 Indianapolis News, May 10, 1915, p. 6. 4.1 Hammond, Indiana, Lake County Times, May 17, 1915, p. 4, cited t..e treaty and remarked, “But this, also, is probably a scrap of paper. 14 Zndiana Magazine of History

done by their government with regard to the outrage, they hesitated, floundered weakly, and ended by advising that it was the duty of all to support the President. Soon they were saying hopefully that they were confident that the President stood for peace. Quite clearly two things were desired: a surrender by Germany and a continued state of peace. Those in authority were told to uphold “our rights” and at the same time avoid the burdens and sacrifices of war, though just how this was to be accomplished if Ger- many proved intractable was not explained. A statement of the Rushville Republican was typical : While it is quite true no one wants to see his country made the doormat for European powers, there are few who would like to see the United States rush ruthlessly into war when they consider the suffering that would result, not considering the financial loss that would be entailed.44 The thought that an exchange of peace for war would rob the country of the economic fruits of neutrality seems to have occurred to many of the writers, for it was the con- census of opinion that war would have a harmful, not bene- ficial, effect on the Indiana business One of the most impressive evidences of this will for peace was the almost unanimous approval given to Wilson’s Philadelphia address of May The “too proud to fight” phrase which was to loom so large in later memories of the speech was taken in stride, inciting very little comment at the time in Indiana. The contemporaries were more in- terested in the President‘s implied promise to proceed cau- tiously and patiently with respect to the “Lusitania” em- broglio and his admonition to his audience of newly natural- ized citizens not to consider themselves as belonging to groups. The latter was enthusiastically applauded as a criticism of hyphenates. Theodore Roosevelt’s strident demands for action brought from both Republican and Demo-

44 Rushville, Indiana, Republican, May 13, 1915, p. 4. 45Plymouth, Indiana, Weekly Republican, May 13, 1915, p. 4; Indianapolis, Indiana Daily Times, May 12, 1915, p. 6; Indianapolis Commercial, May 11, 1915, p. 1. 46Indiaiiapolis Star, May 12, 1915, p. 6; Indianapolis News, May 11, 1915, p. 6; Madison, Indiana, Coumer, May 13, 1915, p. 2; Fort Wayne, Indiana, Sentinel, May 11, 1915, p. 4; South Bend, Indiana, Tribune, May 12, 1915, p. 8; Evansville, Indiana, Courier, May 12, 1915, p. 6; Lafayette, Indiana, Journal, May 11, 1915, p. 6; Louis- ville, Kentucky, Times, May 11, 1915, p. 6. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 15 crat papers expressions of satisfaction that a less belligerent man was in the White Even such an ardent Bull Moose advocate as the editor of the Lafayette Courier quipped, “We have a great deal of respect and admiration for Theodore Roosevelt, but wouldn’t it be just as well to allow President Wilson to deal with the present crisis in his own way.”48 Winning more approbation than his exper- ience of the past few years had accustomed him, ex-President William H. Taft, on the other hand, confined his remarks to publicly advising all Americans to put their trust in their government. Peace sentiment grew stronger the nearer it approached the grass roots. The Louisville Courier-Journal may have wanted war, and the Indianapolis News probably would have met it halfway, but the six- and eight-page dailies and the weekly journals were practically of one mind in their hope for peace.49 The baffling juxtaposition of the evangelistic and an extraordinary, pragmatic realism in the character of those who inhabit the farms and towns of the Middle West was clearly evident here. They denounced the destruction of the “Lusitania” with a fine moral indignation but hastened to point out that the burdens of war were too heavy to be casually shouldered in defense of technicalities. In fact, the evidence would seem to indicate that if such should prove necessary to insure a peaceful solution, many of the Indiana people were willing to concede some- thing to Germany. They grew very cautious when it came to translating this inclination into specific conciliatory pro-

47 Rushville, Indiana, Republican, May 11, 1915, p. 4; South Bend, Indiana, News-Times, May 13, 1915, p. 6; Oxford, Indiana, Gazette, May 21, 1915, p. 5; Louisville, Kentucky, Times, May 10, 1915, p. 6. 48Lafayette, Indiana, Courier, May 12, 1915, p. 6. The Chicago Tribune, leading mid-western Progressive paper in 1912, condemned Roosevelt’s utterances as being “inconsiderate and inflammatory.” See issue of May 13, 1915, p. 6. 49Frankfort, Indiana, Crescent-News, May 10, 1915, p. 4; Sey- mour, Indiana, Republican, May 8, 1915, p. 4; Madison, Indiana, Courier, May 11, 1915, p. 2; Hobart, Indiana, News, May 13, 1915, p. 4; Paoli, Indiana, RepubZican, May 19, 1915, p. 4; Kentland, In- diana, Newton County Enterprise, May 13, 1915, p. 4; Monticello, Indiana, Herald, May 13, 1915, p. 4; Attica, Indiana, Fountain-Warren Democrat, May 13, 1915, p. 2; Plymouth, Indiana, Democrat, May 13, 1914, p. 4; Waterloo, Indiana, Press, May 13, 1915, p. 8; Rensselaer, Indiana, Jasper County Democrat, May 12, 1915, p. 2; Angola, In- diana, Steuben Republican, May 12, 1915, p. 4. See also Huntington, Indiana, Farmer’s Guide, May 22, 1915, p. 874. 16 Indiana Magazine of History

posals, yet enough was written to indicate that at this time a majority might have approved an order for American citizens to ref rain from traveling on belligerent ships carrying munitions. Some would have supported also the more drastic step of notifying United States citizens that they would lose the protection of their government if they entered the war zone on other than American vessels. The Indian- apolis Star noted at some length that the Deople desired a “way out” and speculated, If the United States can find a way to keep Americans off ammunition- loaded vessels or to secure from Great Britain the exclusion of ex- plosives from her passenger ships, a satisfactory arrangement all around might be reached.50 The Lake County News expressed the belief that American travelers should stay at home instead of risking their own lives and also chancing involving this whole nation in international trouble. . . . This nation is in no shape to go to war. Besides what could we hope to gain? There can be found a way of escape without sacrifice of honor, and yet.. . [remain] at the head of the great peace loving nations. By continued peace we will also be fifty or one hundred years ahead of all nations involved in the war, md will leave no war burden for generations to lift.51 The editor’s interrogation was not often so bluntly put, but it undoubldly occurred to many. Although the historical nationalism of the Hoosiers would have caused them to ac- cept war if it had come, the unity and vigor essential to suc- cessful martial effort might have been difficult of attain- ment at this time. It would have been necessary, however, that any devia- tions from international law appear as voluntary concessions and not as surrenders. Opinion was sufficiently aroused that there could be no open submission to German demands. Furthermore, the locals would have adamantly opposed any suggestion that the American merchant marine be withdrawn from the transatlantic trade, and they were

50 Indianapolis Star, May 17, 1915, p. 6. See also Madison, In- diana, Courier, May 12, 1915, p. 2; Logansport, Indiana, Journal- Tribune, May 15, 1915, p. 6; Muncie, Indiana, Evening Press, May 13, 1915, p. 4; Indianapolis, Indiana Daily Times, May 20, 1915, p.. 6; Chicago Examiner, May 14, 1915, p. 18; Paoli, Indiana, Republzcan, May 19, 1915, p. 4; Portland, Indiana, Commercial-Revzew, July 15, 1915, p. 4; New Albany, Indiana, Ledger, May 10, 1915, p. 4. S’Hammond, Indiana, Lake County News, May 13, 1915, p. 2. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 17 more determined than before that munition sales should not be embargoed.62 The sources of much of the conciliatory spirit noted above are obvious, but one of the most vocal contingents was made up of those who might have been expected to be more warlike-the imperialistic, jingoistic, “red-blooded Ameri- canism” school. Though the Hearst papers had for years carried daily chauvanistic essays on national honor, viewed with pride American intervention in Panama, Santo Do- mingo, Honduras, and Nicaragua, advocated strong measures against Japan, and ceaselessly clamored for American intervention in Mexico, they were models of tranquility throughout the “Lusitania” debate.63 The Chicago Tribune had applauded the landing of marines in backward parts of the world, followed Roosevelt in 1912 because of his nationalistic program, and denounced “peace-at-any-price extremists’’ who “well supplied with money and by working through the schools and churches pervert the intelligent humanitarianism of the American people” and thus “prevent the wholesome and honorable egoism of the American republic from asserting itself.”s4 Yet in this crisis the Tribune counseled patience and proposed that concessions be made.65 The LaGrange Standard echoed these aggressive sentiments, openly and re- peatedly advocated the outright annexation of northern Mex- ico, and held the opinion that, If the United States Government is so idiotic as to give up the Philip- pines it is not worth preparing to die for. Such a government has no appeal to the spirit that enables men to suffer, starve, and bleed for their country.56 But when the editor came to discuss the American quar- rel with Germany, he found Germany to be right and the United States to be presumpti~us.~~The Madison Courier wanted the United States to “annex or extend a protec-

52 Indianapolis Star, May 18, 1915, p. 8; Hammond, Indiana, Lake County News, May 13, 1915, p. 2; Monticello, Indiana, H,eruld, June 24, 1915, p. 4; South Bend, Indiana, News-Times, June 28, 1915, p. 6; Muncie, Indiana, Evening Press, July 9, 1915, p. 4. s3CChicago American, May 13, 1915, p. 14; Chicago Examiner, May 14, 1915, p. 18. 54 Chicago Tribune, July 25, 1914, p. 6. “ZbIbid., May 11, 1915, p. 6; May 12, 1915, p. 6; May 13, 1915, p. 6; and May 31, 1915, p. 6. 56 La Grange, Indiana, Standud, April 20, 1916, p. 2. See also issues for August 19, 1915, p. 2 and August 26, 1915, p. 2. 57Zbid., May 13, 1915, p. 2 and May 20, 1915, p. 2. 18 In.diana Muyaxine of History

torate over Mexico and the Central American States” and thought the proposal to pay indemnity to Colombia because of the Panama fiasco’an insult to national honor because the “United States did nothing more in Panama than every strong nation (ourselves included) has done many times in its history.”58 Yet this virile nationalism remained unmoved by the German sea challenge.59 Albert J. Beveridge, major prophet of American imperialism and the “White Man’s Burden,” proponent of Mexican intervention and the possible administering of “her affairs for the next two or three generations,” and opponent of the Panama Canal Tolls “surrender,” was in favor of conceding most of the points at issue in the submarine In part, the spirit of appeasement manifested by those who were normally the least compromising in foreign disputes were expressions of Anglophobia, Yellow Peril hysteria, and pro-German sym- pathy. But these did not constitute the whole of the story. The explanation lay partly in a state of mind which was more sensitive to the call of the White Man’s Burden in Timbuktu-or Nicaragua or Mexico !-than in challenging the German military machine in a war which offered no material gain for the United States-a state of mind which looked with respect on virile countries such as Germany that did not hesitate to follow their “destinies.” There were times when members of this group seemed to get vicarious satisfaction from Germany’s bold and challenging strokes- even when directed at the United States. If they could have worked their will, the country would have followed a “realistic” policy of national opportunism by making war on Mexico, seizing such lands in the Caribbean as were deemed essential to national interests, and washing its hands of the conflict in Europe, except, possibly for such bargaining as could be safely and profitably consummated. An increase - in national consciousness and chauvinism in the general public would facilitate entry into the war in 1917,

58 Madison, Indiana, Courier, June 25, 1914, p. 2 and June 30, 1914, p. 2. 59 Throughout t,he “Lusitania” crisis the Madison, Indiana, Courier counseled peace with Germany and war on Mexico. See issues for May 11, 1915, p. 2; May 12, 1915, p. 2; and June 3, 1915, p. 2. GoClaude G. Bowers, Beveridge and the Progressive Era (New York, 1932), 448, 484. Imperialism and liberalism, usually considered to be antagonistic, bedded together in Beveridge’s philosophy. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 19 but these prewar imperialists were to remain indifferent toward American action against Germany to the last. In one respect the desire of much of the public for peace on the ground that the sacrifices of war were too great to contemplate was offset by the rather commonly held contradictory belief that if America became a belligerent she would play only a passive role, similar to that currently performed by Japan. It was frequently argued that because the Kaiser’s navy was bottled up by the English and the two countries lacked common geographical boundaries there would be no way for the United States to operate against Germany, or vice versa. As the Terre Haute Star stated : Germany could not possibly get at us to inflict a blow of any kind at present. Nor could we assail Germany except as we might join forces with the Allies. As affairs now stand, talk of a war between this country and Germany is in the same class as would be plans for a naval demonstration against Switzerland.61 “If we wanted to fight Germany we could not reach any German fleet or army,” said the Louisville Courier-Journal.6z A few felt that Germany would be so little harmed by American participation that she might be planning to force the United-States into the war so as to remove all checks to her submarine policy and in order to place the United States in a position where her own armament needs would prevent the shipment of munitions to Germany’s European enemies.63 One of the more meaningful straws in the wind of public opinion was the reaction of those of German descent to the “Lusitania” crisis. The initial news of the sinking had evoked spontaneous and open rejoicing from them over the “victory,” but as relations between Germany and the United States grew taut, they moderated their remarks and their leaders pledged that should unwanted war come, the German element would be found fighting for the country of their adoption. Though they remained positive that Ger- many was fully justified in her action, and though words grew heated between them and the rest of the population,

“1Terre Haute, Indiana, Star, February 17, 1915, p. 6. 62 Louisville, Kentucky, Courier-Journal, May 12, 1915, p. 4. 63 Indianapolis Commercial, May 19, 1915, p. 1; Crawfordsville, Indiana, Jowrnal (weekly ed.), May 21, 1915, p. 2. 20 Indiana Magazine of History

the discerning observer could have seen that one of the major lessons of the “Lusitania” impasse was that in a time of supreme test the German-Americans would fall in line.64 The German-American of 1915 may not have been a spiritual democrat but he made almost a fetish of duty, honor, and order, and he admired Hohenzollern Germany because he believed those were its traits. In case of war between the United States and the Fatherland, these same attributes would lead him to search his soul and dutifully support the law under which he lived. Close on the heels of the fateful sinking came two other developments which tended to discredit Germany in local opinion. A former resident of America, after literally push- ing his way into the office of United States Ambassador James Gerard in Berlin, had poured forth an ill-tempered verbal assault on William Jennings Bryan until forcibly ejected.6s Under the circumstances the event received much more attention than it warranted. At about the same time appeared a report on German atrocities in Belgium by an English investigating commission headed by Viscount James Bryce, former British ambassador to the United States and possessor of an almost unrivaled reputation for objectivity based on writings as diverse as the Holy Roman Empire and the American Cornmonwealth. Tearful and barbarous happenings were related :66 At Vise: ““he village was completely destroyed.” At Sempst: A girl of seventeen “alleged that she herself and other girls had been dragged into a field, stripped naked and violated and that some of them had been killed with a bayonet.” At Heure le Romain: “the burgomaster’s brother and the priest were bayoneted.” At Soumagne: “The eye witness . . . saw . . . twenty bodies, one that of a girl of thirteen.” At Eppeghem: “. . . a dead body of a child of two was seen pinned to the ground with a German lance.” Although the account pointed out that the investigators had not personally witnessed these horrors and stated that some

64Indianapolis News, May 10, 1915, p. 4; Warsaw, Indiana, Northern Indzanian, May 27, 1915, p. 4; Evansville, Indiana, Demo- krat, May 17, 1915, p. 1; Wittke, German-Americans and the World War, 74. 65 South Bend, Indiana, News-Times, May 13, 1915, p. 2; Indi- anapolis Star, May 14, 1915, p. 1. 66 Indianapolis News, May 12, 1915, p. 1. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 21 of them were probably exaggerated, it expressed the belief of the commission that “murder, rape, arson, and pillage began from the moment when the German army crossed the frontier.” What was more damning was the conclusion that these things had been done as part of a conscious policy of “general terrorization” designed to hasten the submission of the Belgian people. The report as a whole was more moderate than the selected quotations would indicate, but it presented a hideous picture gnd served to review the “atrocities” of Belgium at a time when the “Lusitania” crisis had made the public more credulous of reported German brutality. It would be easy, however, to exaggerate the importance of this strange document, for the Indianapolis News alone in the state carried a detailed summary.67 Its influence was greatest among those who recognized and admired Chairman Bryce (the “Atlantic Monthly fellers,” as Artemus Ward once named this group), and they were already staunchly pro-Ally.G8 Meanwhile, the first note of protest regarding the “Lusi- tania” had gone forth to Germany, declaring the intention of the American government “of maintaining the rights of the United States and its citizens” and asking for disavowal, reparations, and security for the future. Once more the cry went up for all to close ranks. The editors enthusiastically underwrote the position taken by the go~ernment,~~ and the Church Federation of Indianapolis documented the

67 Papers which ran shorter summaries included: South Bend, Indiana, Nlews-Times, May 12, 1915, p. 1; Evansville, Indiana, Courier, May 13, 1915, p. 8; Goshen, Indiana, News-Times, May 13, 1915,.p. 2; Indianapolis Star, May 13, 1915, p. 2. Not one of these made editorial comment on the report. The Bryce report was to play two dissimilar roles. In 1915 it helped to convince the American people of the rightness of the Allied cause. Its easily demonstrated untrustworthiness in the post-war years was to give impetus to the “disillusionist” reaction. 08 One evidence of this selective influence was the much greater emphasis placed on the Bryce report by the magazines as compared to the newspapers. See, for example, the Nation (New York, 1865-), C (1915), 554-55; Outlook (New York, 1893-1932), CX (1915), 150-51; Independent (New York and Boston, 1848-1928), LXXXII (1915), 309- 10; and Nineteenth Century (London, 1877-) , LXXVII (1915), 1234-48. 69Kokomo, Indiana, Tribune, May 14, 1915, p. 6; Huntingburg, Indiana, Independent, May 15, 1915, p. 4; Chicago Herald, May 14, 1915, p. 6; Louisville, Kentucky, Times, May 14, 1915, p. 6; Fort Wayne, Indiana, Sentinel, May 14, 1915, p. 4; Liberty, Indiana, Herald, May 20, 1915, p. 4; Oxford, Indiana, Gazetfe, May 21, 1915, p. 5; Plymouth, Indiana, Republican, May 20, 1915, p. 4; Brookville, In- diana, American, May 20, 1915, p. 4. 22 Indiana Magazine of History

tenor of the times by a conspicuous appeal for all to have “confidence in the President” who was a ‘(God-fearing man.”7o An even better reflection of the various facets of the public mood at this stage could be found in the events of May 18, which earlier had been designated National Peace Day. The sincere prayers that the United States be spared the horrors of war which rose heavenward from the many commemorative services held by schools, churches, and women’s clubs were expressions of a basic peace sentiment. However, a pageant at Gardner School, Valparaiso, which pictured all nations as submitting to peace except Germany (represented by a boy in full armor) mirrored the picture of the German Empire which existed in the mind of the average citizen and demonstrated the possibility of a war in the interest of peace.T1 The excessive emphasis which the newspapers of that same day gave to the President’s grand review of the American war fleet denoted the height- ened nationalism and preparedness sentiment which constituted still another aspect of the seitgei~t.~~ While the public waited with varying degrees of impatience for Germany’s reply, a torpedo smashed without warning into the westward-bound American ship, “Nebras- kan.” Fortunately, there were no fatalities, but many wondered if this blow constituted the awaited answer. On May 29, 1915, however, such speculation was brought to an end by receipt of the official German reply. Because it ignored most of the points of American protest, it was regarded as “evasive” ; and because it argued German justifica- tion on the ground that the “Lusitania” was an armed British auxilliary warship, it was characterized as an “insult.” No proof of this was given and American port officials, the State Department, and survivors swore to the contrary. “Worth

7OIndianapolis News, May 15, 1915, p. 19. The Chicago, Illinois Staats-Zeitung, as quoted in Chicago Journal, May 13, 1915, p. 3, thought that “no fair-minded person can take the President’s note seriously. We fear it will be looked upon as a poor diplomatic joke in Germany.” The Indianapolis Telegraph und Tmbune, May 17, 1915, p. 4, said Americans should use neutral ships and described “Bryan’s note” as having been dipped in poison. “We are told that now is the time for all to stand by the President. On the other hand, the time is here for all patriotic Americans to unanimously and energetic- ally oppose his false and dishonorable policy.” “Valparaiso, Indiana, Daily Vidette, May 19, 1915, p. 1. T2 Anderson, Indiana, Bulletiri, May 18, 1915, p. 1; Bloomington, Indiana, World, May 18, 1915, p. 1. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 23 less than the paper upon which it is ~ritten”~~-“reflects on the integrity of the United State~”~~-“quibbling”~~- “quite unsatisfactory”i6-“increases and intensifies the situation”ii were characteristic remarks. A popular cartoon showed Germany disdainfully snapping her fingers at Wilson and humanity.i8 Only the pro-Germans found the reply to be satisfactory. “German Answer Demands Truth About the Lusitania,” was the page-wide headline of the Indian- apolis Spottvogel;i9 and the Illinois Staats-Zeitung asserted that “the German reply concedes more than possibly could have been expected and may be taken as a striking argument for the righteousness of the German position in this case.”s0 There followed a week filled with demands that the next American communication speak more pointedly and rumors to the effect that just such an epistle was being prepared in Washington. Therefore, when on June 9 the public learned that the rejoinder of the United States was in the German foreign office and that Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan had resigned rather than affix his name to it, it was generally assumed that the note was an ultimatum and war a distinct possibility, if not a probability.81 Only after twenty-four uncertain hours had passed was it known that no ultimatum had been sent. When released, this second “Lusitania” note was applauded for its vigorous defense of the American position and was welcomed with relief because it left the way open for further exchange of views.82 Though they did not yet wish to fight Germany,

~ isPlymouth, Indiana, Democrat, June 3, 1915, p. 4. ’*Lafayette, Indiana, Journal, June 1, 1915, p. 6. 7.7 Decatur, Indiana, Democrat, June 1, 1915, p. 2. 76 Chicago Daily News, May 31, 1915, p. 6. 77 Warsaw, Indiana, Northern Indianian, June 3, 1915, p. 8. 78 Lafayette, Indiana, Journal, June 1, 1915, p. 1. 79 Indianapolis Spottvogel, May 30, 1915, p. 1. See also Indianapolis Telegraph und Tribune, May 31, 1915, p. 4. Contrary to later popular belief, no dispute arose as lo whether the “Lusitania” carried munitions; that fact was generally accepted by all. However, the argument as to whether the “Lusitania” carried cannons was bitter and prolonged. 80 Chicago, Illinois Staats-Zeitung as quoted in the Evansville, Indiana, Courier, June 1, 1915, p. 2. 81 Indianapolis Star, June 9, 1915, p. 8; Michigan City, Indiana, Dispatch, June 9, 1915, p. 1; Gary, Indiana, Post-Tribune, June 9, 1915, p. 1 and June 10, 1915, p. 1. 82 Rushville, Indiana, Republican. June 11, 1915, p. 4; Chicago Tribune, June 11, 1915, p. 6; Lafayette, Indiana, Journal, June 11, 1915, p. 6; Sullivan, Indiana, Union, June 16, 1915, p. 4. 24 Indiana Magazine of History

Hoosiers were growing impatient over what they regarded as German procrastination, and their mood was less compromising than it had been two weeks earlier. It is doubtful if any American, not guilty of open treason, was ever subjected to verbal abuse equal to that which beat upon the head of Bryan as a result of his resignation from the cabinet. Circumstances, past and present, conspired to make him almost championless. Sensitive of the fact that only Republican disunity in 1912 had enabled them to elect their second President since the Civil War, the Democrats felt that Bryan had let them down by inviting disharmony in their own ranks. To the Republicans, the three-times candidate for President had become the symbol of their partisan enemy, and their journals which had lashed him for years with charges of Populism, cheap money, free trade, and lack of “red-blooded” patriotism hastened to cite this new deed as crowning proof of his rascality. Patriots compared him to Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, and Clement L. Vallandigham. Conservatives reviewed his economic heresies. Practically all expressed the fear that the resignation would be interpreted in Germany as an evidence of internal disagreement, thereby encouraging her to be less conciliatory. According to the Indianapolis Star, this “shallow ranter,” “incapable of intellectual integrity,” and “willing to sacrifice everything on the altar of his own ambition,” “prefers to give aid and comfort to a power with which we are on very critical terms, a power that is likely to be gravely misled by his show of division and disunion.”s3 The Monticello Hevald described him as “a pilot who deserted the ship just before the storm began” ;84 the Brookville Awherican remarked that the “country again realizes that it escaped a great calamity three times within the past twenty years”;soand the Goshen News-Times thundered that “the Kaiser has awarded the Iron Cross for less valuable service than that rendered by Mr. Bryan.”86 The Evansville Courier assured its readers that “Mr. Bryan is no more anxious for peace than President

83 Indianapolis Starr, June 10, 1915, p. 8. 84 Monticello, Indiana, Herald, June 17, 1915, p. 4. 85 Brookville, Indiana, American, June 17, 1915, p. 4. 86 Goshen, Indiana, N,ews-Times, June 9, 1915, p. 2. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 25

Wilson is. The difference is that the President is for peace with honor and Mr. Bryan for peace-at-any-pri~e.”~~ Such support as the battered Bryan received came chief- ly from three sources. Quakers and other pacifists upheld him. Some of the Democrats were inclined to apologize for the man who had been the protector of the party in those long, lean years when it wandered in the wilderness of defeat and was therefore to be regarded as more than just another of the many recent unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidates.88 The last quarter from which he received approbation, he could well have been spared. The German- Americans and Irish who had formerly possessed “full evidence of his endeavors to serve Great Britain for family reasons or even more discreditable suddenly dis- covered that he was the “only really intelligent man in Wash- ingt~n.”~~Through the following weeks they invited all “Friends of Peace” to rally around Bryan in order to prevent a dictatorial President from dragging an unwilling country into war. But they demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of the temperament of the public, and thus hampered their cause, by insisting that Wall Street and the munition manufacturers were responsible for the agita- tion following the sinking of the “Lu~itania.”~~

87 Evansville, Indiana, Courier, June 10, 1915, p. 2. About one hundred citizens of Indianapolis, including Meredith Nicholson, Jacob P. Dunn, Demarchus C. Brown, Hugh McK. Landon, and William For- tune, sent a resolution to President Wilson pledging their support and denouncing “renegade opposition.” See Indianapolis, Indiana Daily Times, June 12, 1915, p. 1. The Princeton Chamber of Commerce spon- sored a public meeting which sent a note to the President commending his stand and offering “congratulations that you are at last able to be sure of the unanimity of your official advisers.” See Indianapolis News, June 11, 1915, p. 1. 88 Attica, Indiana, Fountain-Warren Democrat, June 10, 1915, p. 3; Rensselaer, Indiana, Jasper County Democrat, June 12, 1915, p. 2; Louisville, Kentucky, Times, June 9, 1915, p. 6; Kendallville, Indiana, News-Sun, July 14, 1915, p. 4. 89 Indianapolis Star, June 10, 1915, p. 8. ’OZbid. The Indianapolis Telegraph und Tribune, June 9, 1915, p. 4, felt that “Man must be forever thankful” toward Bryan for his “big service to Germany.” The Irish Indianapolis, Indiana Catholic, which had long considered Bryan to be its special enemy, now called for a special session of Congress to investigate the reasons for his “forced” resignation. See issue of June 11, 1915, p. 4. The German- Americans and Irish were somewhat discomfited, however, by Bryan’s assertions that the sinking of the “Lusitania” could not be defended, that the American quarrels with Germany and England should be separately disposed of, and his continued defense of the munitions trade. 91Indianapolis Telegraph und Tribune, June 9, 1915, p. 4; Indi- anapolis, Zndiana Catholic, June 11, 1915, p. 4; Evansville, Indiana, 26 In.diana Magazine of History

Amidst the sound and fury of the assaults on the ex- Secretary of State, the people of Indiana gave little attention to his proposals that (1) the President should warn Americans against traveling on belligerent ships, (2) prevent American vessels from carrying munitions, and (3) arbi- trate the dispute with Germany after the fashion provided in the cooling off treaties. Undoubtedly much of the previous sentiment favorable to these ideas remained in the Middle West. But due to the growing impatience toward Germany, the unwillingness to strengthen the impression of national disunity, the compulsion felt by the Democrats to hold up the hands of Wilson, and the congenital inability of the Republicans to agree with Bryan, little attention was paid to them at this point. Moreover, there was to be in some quarters a future tendency to associate such proposals with “peace-at-any-price” and pro-German doctrines. Under the circumstances, Flag Day, June 14, and In- dependence Day took on special importance this year. On the former occasion patriotic paraders, with “Old Glory” to front and rear, trudged through the streets of a number of cities under the sponsorship of the local Elks Lodge.g2 Sun- day, July 4, was designated Americanization Day and dedi- cated to a “rebaptism of patriotism” for “Americans by birth and Americans by choice.” Special services were held in the churches, at which war veterans occupied reserved seats, patriotic songs were lustily rendered, and the clergy thanked God for Of the holiday motorists who thronged the roads, “it was an exception to see a car without a display of the national colors.”94 All in all, it was an uncommonly patriotic Fourth and the first one for many a year whose motif was not antagonism to England.

Demokrat, June 10, 1915, p. 1. S. M. Sexton wrote to the Indianapolis Star expressing the belief that if no property had been lost in the sinking of the “Lusitania,” there would have been no crisis. See issue of June 3, 1915, p. 6. George Sylvester Viereck pleaded with the American people not to go to war ‘‘to defend the rights of Wall Street gamblers to their pound of flesh.” See Indianapolis Star, July 25, 1915, p. 2. 92 Goshen, Indiana, News-Times, June 12, 1915, p. 1; Huntingburg, Indiana, Independent, June 19, 1915, p. 2; Indianapolis News, June 14, 1915, p. 1. 93 Sullivan, Indiana, Union, July 7, 1915, p. 7; Evansville, Indiana, Cou.rier, June 12, 1915, p. 6; South Bend, Indiana, News-Times, July 2, 1915, p. 4; Kendallville, Indiana, News-Sun, July 6, 1915, p. 1. 94Hammond, Indiana, Labe County News, July 15, 1915, p. 2. Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 27

Four days later the German answer to the American note was handed to Ambassador Gerard. Again there was no disavowal and no promise for the future, and again the editors grew critical. “Germany did not even say ‘please write again,’ ” quipped the Frankfort Cre~cent-New~.~~Back went the American reply on July 21, 1915, constituting the third “Lusitania” note written by the United States. The warning that repetitions of the sinkings “must be regarded by the United States, when they affect American citizens, as deliberately unfriendly,” was recognized as an intended final remonstrance. The United States would write no more on this matter, and future relations between the two countries would depend on German action. But so long as that action was correct the public would not insist that Germany set her seal to humiliating words. As one contemporary wrote: The note calls for no answer, unless Germany wishes. If the Imperial Government is afraid of public opinion in Germany it need hot reply, and yet it may continue the friendship of the United States by stopping those naval acts in contravention of American rights.96 Anyway, the people had grown weary of words, and innum- erable facetious remarks were being made concerning the necessity of “an extraordinary index and filing to keep track of the many communications that had been written. The “final” word having been said, it was hoped that the submarine danger was laid. So strongly did they wish such a consummation that the public appeared determined to prevent any future crisis by refusing to discuss the possibility of its occurrence. A return to a more tranquil relationship with the Central Powers became all the easier because of tightening relations with England as a result of her latest unsatisfactory explanation which had arrived while the third “Lusitania” note still lingered in the newspapers. Its uncompromising tone was generally resented. Editors and politicians welcomed the chance to mollify the pro-Ger- mans and prove their neutrality by salting their comments

95 Frankfort, Indiana, Crescent-News, July 14, 1915, p. 4. See also Seymour, Indiana, Republican, July 13, 1915, p. 4; Fort Wayne, Indiana, Journal-Gazette, July 12, 1915, p. 4. Qfi South Bend, Indiana, Tribune, July 24, 1915, p. 10. 97 Monticello, Indiana, Herald, August 19, 1915, p. 4. See also Crown Point, Indiana, Lake County Star, July 16, 1915, p. 4; Terre Haute, Indiana, Star, July 8, 1915, p. 6; Vevay, Indiana, Reveille, June 24, 1915, p. 4. 28 Indiana Magazine of History with angry and sarcastic adjectives and instructing the State Department to dispatch a sharp re~rirnand.~~English cita- tion of Civil War precedents to strengthen the legality of her deeds was particularly resented by the average citizen : The less said by British diplomats about what happened during the Civil War the better . . . . the people of the North have not forgotten how England sought to take advantage of our misfortunes, even when it involved the lending of aid and comfort to men in rebellion against the national authority and in behalf of the institution of slavery.99 Henry James's coincidental exchange of his American citi- zenship for an English allegiance also drew fire in the Mid- dle West where expatriates customarily were regarded as high-hat aristocrats or worse. One local patriot bid a sarcastic and elaborate good-by to the "veneered Briton, who ought to draw a garter or a pair of suspenders from the crown for his formal shift of allegiance. To paraphrase Indiana's chief man of letters: 'Good bye, Hen, take Keer o'yerself.' "lno Yet it is clear that though the citizens enjoyed growling at England in this manner and although they wanted a sharp note sent her way, their anger was firmly leashed by their sense of caution, and any thoughts of definite action dissolved harmlessly before the unchanging facts that (1) for ideological and national reasons most of them wished the war to end in a defeat of Hohenzollern and Hapsburg,lol (2) loss of life was not involved, and (3) English sea actions did no material harm to Indiana economic interests.ln2 Hav-

"Indianapolis News, July 27, 1915, p. 6; Indianapolis Star, July 28, 1915, p. 6; Indianapolis, Indiana Daily Times, July 26, 1915, p. 4. 99 Milncie, Indiana, Evening Press, August 7, 1915, p. 4. loo Ibid., August 7, 1915, p. 4. 1olAt the time of the first American protest to England an editorial in the Indianapolis Star minced no words on this score. "What man can doubt that were Germany to sweep the seas of British warships her strong commercial grasp upon South America would be turned into an actual governmental grasp? Then we should be faced with the choice of throwing the Monroe Doctrine overboard or fighting for it. In this sense the British fleet today is really the American fleet . . . . Let us not turn a reasonable note to a friendly nation into an occasion for jingoistic onslaughts upon her in her hour of need." See issue of January 1, 1915, p. 6. An influential minority in the state had been asserting from the beginning of the war that a German victory would endanger America. Instinctively, many of the less vocal Hoosiers seem to have felt likewise-how many, it is impossible to say. As far as this group was concerned, American foreign policy of 1915 was not so much a cause of eventual war as it was an immediate entry into the conflict. 102 Huntington, Indiana, Farmw's Guide, November 7, 1914, p. 1174, noted that the war had helped the northern but injured the Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 29 ing opposed war with unpopular Germany over the destruction of life on the “Lusitania,” they had no wish to risk martial conflict with the more popular Allies over property losses suffered by American exporting corporations. Post- war historians have sometimes contended that the administration gave away a strong case against the Allies in 1915 without Perhaps it did. But it is clear that their government was doing all that the public wanted done with regard to Allied sea action. Public and President, apparently, traveled the same road to the same conclusions. In any event, the headline news of August 20, 1915, “Liner Arabic Finds Grave Alongside Lusitania,”lo4 pushed the irregularities of the prize court into the background as State Department and public wearily took up again the threads of submarine diplomacy. The situation was all the more acute because this time there could be no excuse on the ground that the Americans were on a munition-laden ship, for as editor after editor pointed out the “Arabic” was westward bound and its American passengers on their way home.lo5 On the whole, however, the tragedy seems to have been received with more regret than anger-regret that the diplomatic calm had been broken and another wrangle was at hand. It was characteristic of those days that, though they were far less emotionally moved than they had been by the “Lusitania” tragedy, the people would have been more willing for their government to have severed diplomatic relations with Germany. Not that they wanted to take that step, but there was a general feeling that, in view of the fact that four written protests had already been made in which a “position” had been officially taken, the United States had no choice but to adopt strong measures if this deed proved southern farmer. See also Horace C. Peterson, Propaganda for War, The Campmign Against American Neutrality, 1914-1917 (Norman, Oklahoma, 1939), 80. Those who suffered most from English sea activity had been the meat packers, cotton growers, and importing and exporting firms generally. Except for a slight interest in the first, Indiana had virtually no economic stake in these. 103 Alice M. Morrissey, The American Defense of Neutral Rights: 1914-1917 (Cambridge, 1939) ; Charles C. Tansill, America Goes to Ww (Boston, 1938), 134-62, ff. 10% Fort Wayne, Indiana, Sentinel, August 20, 1915, p. 1. 106Indianapolis Sta~,August 20, 1915, p. 8; Fort Wayne, Indiana, Journal-Gazette, August 20, 1915, p. 1 ; Gary, Indiana, Post-Tribune, August 20, 1915, p. 1. 30 Indiana Magazine of History

to be Germany’s answer to the last American warning.lo6 A Goshen editor reflected this attitude in an “open letter” whose ironical tone was aimed at both German action and administration verbiage : Dear Kaiser: In spite of previous correspondence on the subject another ship with American citizens on board has been sunk. Under the circumstances we feel constrained to inform you, in a spirit of utmost friendliness, that a repetition of the incident will of necessity require the dispatch of another note to your majesty’s most estimable and peace-loving government.107 Representatives of the German government demonstrated their awareness of this growing impatience on the part of public and government by the dispatch with which they hastened to apply diplomatic medication. On August 24, 1915, Ambassador Johann von Bernstorff expressed the regret of his country for the loss of life, and more important, announced that the sinking was contrary to the intentions of the German government. Foreign Minister von Jagow matched this with a conciliatory pronouncement from Berlin, and a few days later, September 1, von Bernstorff put in writing the solemn pledge that “Liners will not be sunk by our submarines without warning and without safety of the lives of non-combatants, provided that the liners do not try to escape or offer resistance.” A few were skeptical and a few noted that the promise applied only to liners, but most Hoosiers hailed the German surrender as a “blaodless victory” which had preserved national “dignity” without the sacrifice of “peace and prosperity.”lns Presumably, diplomacy had been proved “more effective than bullets.”log Whereas the victory had been won without resorting to the bellicose methods of Roosevelt or making the concessions advocated by Bryan, it was further regarded as proof of the wisdom of Wilson’s policy,11o and his personal star ascended higher than it was to go again during peacetime. With the danger

106 South Bend, Indiana, Tvibume, August 25, 1915, p. 6; Decatur, Indiana, Daily Democrat, August 20, 1915, p. 2 and August 23, 1915, p. 2. 107 Goshen, Indiana, News-Times, August 20, 1915, p. 2. 1osPlymouth, Indiana, Democrat, September 2, 1915, p. 4; Fort Wayne, Indiana, Journal-Gazette, August 28, 1915, p. 4. 109 North Judson, Indiana, News, September 16, 1915, p. 4. 1loNew Albany, Indiana, Publio Press, September 21, 1915, p. 1, sarcastically noted that the conc:pions had been won without benefit of the much-offered advice of Col. Bryan, Col. Roosevelt, or Col. Watterson.” Indiana’s Reaction to the Submarine Controversy 31 past and the goal achieved, all hastened to affirm that the United States had demanded nothing that was not rightly hers and Germany had but bowed to the obviously correct.lll Yet submarine disturbances for 1915 were not entirely ended. A moderate flurry arose in September upon receipt of a new note defending the “Arabic” sinking but quickly subsided following Germany’s capitulation on October 5. The “Hesperian,” “Ancona,” and the “Persia” were torpedoed and sunk with loss of American lives in the closing months of the year. Though not one of these developments was considered of primary importance, together they provided enough friction to keep alive a sense of irritation among the public. One citizen fumed after the “Ancona” sinking :

So long as this sort of thing goes on it is pitifully imbecile for Ger- many and Austria to complain because of American apathy on the maritime excess of the British. You might as well ask a man to examine the fraudulent deed some sharper had given him to his house and lot at a moment when the neighbor’s dog is chewing off his baby’s arm.112 In recapitulation it becomes apparent that of the many factors conditioning America’s relation to the European war in 1915 the most consequential was the unterseeboot. And though the year ended in comparative calm, irretraceable steps had been taken in public opinion. The people would never quite cease to view the European strife through the portholes of the “Lusitania” and “Arabic,” particularly the former. The humanitarian antipathy toward Germany previously held by a majority of the citizens had been deepened. Of far greater significance, a nationalistic antagonism had been added. Preparedness sentiment had arisen sharply. The victory had strengthened the public’s belief in the rightness of the American position and had set their feet on a road from which they could turn back with only the greatest‘ difficulty, for having won through on these issues once, it would prove almost impossible to back down when the same or similar disputes arose in the future. The number of those who were pro-Ally probably had not been appreciably in- creased, for the pro-Germans and Anglophobes remained un-

111 Compare the cautious words of the New Castle, Indiana, Daily Times, on August 23, 1915, p. 4, when war threatened, with the forth- right assertions of September 2, 1915, p. 4, after Germany had yielded. 112 Indianapolis Star, November 16, 1915, p. 8, 32 Indiana Maga,aine of History convinced. But these groups were placed on the defensive, and it had been demonstrated that they would not create a diversion in case of war. Hereafter, there was no substantial chance of an arms embargo, and there was even less need than formerly for England to fear strong retaliatory measures against her commercial policy as long as it did not endanger American lives. Despite the increasing number of jests concerning illimitable note writing, the administration’s handling of the submarine issue had reflected the sentiments of the people with singular accuracy.

The next spring, 1916, a new diplomatic crisis arose when the Germans torpedoed the Allied merchantman “SUS- sex” in violation of the promise of September 1, seriously injuring several Americans. The German pledge of May 4 to abide by the rules of cruiser warfare ended the impasse and marked the beginning of a several months’ period of improved relations with the United States. During that lull occurred the election of 1916. But February 1, 1917, the German government began a desperate attempt to cut the Allied life lines by unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking neutral as well as belligerent vessels. When in March a number of unarmed American ships were destroyed without warning, the country was confronted with the alterna- tives of withdrawing its shipping from the north Atlantic for the duration of the conflict or going to war to defend it. For that reason-and for other significant ones outside the scope OP this work-the United States formally declared war on Germany April 6, 1917.